A Progression to Transfer RIRD to the Natural Environment

Abstract

Response interruption and redirection has been shown to be effective for decreasing vocal stereotypy, but treatment effects in the natural environment have yet to be documented in the literature. A recent review indicated the paucity of studies that implemented response interruption and redirection during typically occurring activities or for sessions longer than 5-10 min. One method to promote generalization across settings may be stimulus control procedures. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the progression of the intervention from a highly structured to a more natural setting, and across longer durations. We also investigated the extent to which a signal could acquire stimulus control over stereotypy. Although we were unable to bring stereotypy under the inhibitory control of a signal alone, we maintained low levels of stereotypy in the natural environment and ultimately extended sessions up to 30 min. Clinical implications and areas for future research are discussed.

Intervention, stimulus control, and generalization effects of response interruption and redirection on motor stereotypy

“…Also, occurrence of body and hand stereotypies did not appear to be affected by the sequence of conducting probe assessments. Given these equivocal findings and the results of prior RIRD research (Love et al, ; Martinez et al, ; Schumacher & Rapp, ), future studies should continue to evaluate the effects of different stimulus characteristics and saliency on multiple topographies of motor stereotypy when intervening with RIRD and how establishing stimulus control over stereotypy in multiple settings can be of practical value for care providers (Rapp, Patel, Ghezzi, O'Flaherty, & Titterington, ).…”

“…First, David engaged in body and hand stereotypies less frequently during intervention compared with baseline phases. Second, RIRD had a progressively stronger effect the longer David was exposed to the procedure, and stereotypy continued to decrease when RIRD was implemented in another setting (Martinez et al, ). Third, the study found that a moderate degree of stimulus control was achieved over body stereotypy although less evident with hand stereotypy.…”

“…Other stimulus control manipulations in Love et al were signaling intervention conditions by having experimenters wear different colored shirts and state discriminative instructions (e.g., “We're going to play with toys that make noise” and “We're going to play with quiet toys”). Finally, Martinez, Betz, Liddon, and Werle () reduced vocal stereotypy in a child with autism through RIRD but found that a visual stimulus (pink poster board) paired with intervention did not acquire inhibitory control in the absence of RIRD. The authors hypothesized that low saliency of the visual stimulus may have accounted for this finding.…”

“…Concerning behavior function, RIRD would be relevant for automatically reinforced vocal and motor stereotypies (Rapp & Vollmer, ) but contraindicated if stereotypic responding is attention maintained or escape motivated. Programming and testing for stimulus control during and following RIRD intervention, although addressed infrequently (Martinez et al, ), are a reasonable approach to promote generalization and lessen the implementation demands of care providers as demonstrated in several studies that treated stereotypy using discrimination‐training procedures (Brusa & Richman, ; Haley, Heick, & Luiselli, ; O'Connor, Prieto, Hoffmann, DeQuinzio, & Taylor, ). Extending RIRD effectively to the natural environment has applied significance on many levels and might be achieved through strategic programming such as conducting intervention during typical activities that provide reinforcement for alternative behaviors (Martinez et al, ).…”

A comparison of response interruption and redirection and competing items on vocal stereotypy and appropriate vocalizations

“…Identifying caregivers' perceptions of procedural strengths and weaknesses should direct future studies to better address their concerns. This may be particularly important as researchers have been transitioning from highly controlled laboratory evaluations to more naturalistic environments (e.g., Colón & Ahearn, ; Giles, Swain, Quinn, & Weifenbach, ; Martinez, Betz, Liddon, & Werle, ; Sloman, Schulman, Torres‐Viso, & Edelstein, ). In certain public settings, parents and other caregivers may be less able to implement RIRD or to permit sound‐producing toys.…”